Top 100 Angels: Brad FULLMER #90
The unsung hero of the 2002 World Champions, Brad Fullmer posted the highest On-Base Percentage + Slugging (OPS) of any Angel that season (.888), in 94 of his 130 games that season as the Designated Hitter (the others were at 1B).
Fullmer played respectably in the 2002 postseason; it was his single off Russ Ortiz with a man on and one out in the fateful bottom of the 7th Inning that brought Dusty Baker to the mound with a call to the bullpen. Breaking all known protocol and voodoo-no-no logic, Baker handed the ball Fullmer had hit to a departing Ortiz as reward for having pitched so well.
Fullmer would score on the next batter's homerun, a part of the greatest comeback in World Series history.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fullmer Gets His Due
He reminds of Shea Hillenbrand, both mostly offensive-minded players who didn’t do enough to distinguish themselves at that part of their game to really be considered worth much. But he was a big part of the 2002 club, especially in the WS, and I’ll always have a seat for him in my fanatic’s bench.
If his OPS was .388, we didn't win 99 games.
You want .888, I believe.
http://inplaynoouts.blogspot.com/ - A blog about teams I like, written by me.
.388, .888, whatever it takes.
We could use more guys like that.
dang AA...
im supposed to put the picture on these guys lol :^)….so im sticking to you lol

Go gettem next year, what have we got to lose--Frankie?
by AnaheimHalos61 on Nov 19, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
*sticking it to you
Go gettem next year, what have we got to lose--Frankie?
by AnaheimHalos61 on Nov 19, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Long live The Fullmer..........
no matter what…I’ll always have the summer of ’02………
Disappointment proves that expectations were mistaken.......ladies and gentlemen your 2008 Buffalo Bills.....
by norcaliangelsfan on Nov 18, 2008 3:20 PM PST reply actions
Fullmer made for a great 1B/DH with Spezio in '02.
Damn…that was such a great year!
I don’t recall…was it 2003 or 2004 when he hyper-extended his knee legging out a grounder to first base? I remember being upset when he got injured.
Fuller hit some of the hardest frozen ropes I have ever seen. #90 on the all-time Angels list sounds about right.
It was 2003...
He was CRUSHING the ball in 2003 too…
.306/.387/.500 and drawing more walks than ever before in his career in his age 28 season. Then the injury – 250 or so AB’s in 2004 and out of baseball at 29. His OPS+ in 2002 and 2003 were north of 130 and he hung it up a year later.
Check his stats…interesting look.
Jim Scully
Fullmer
was one of my favorite players on that team and his arms were enormous. I hope he wasn’t on steriods.
Juice
My buddies and I used to call him “THE JUICE”
by Angel'sAngel on Nov 21, 2008 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
Steroids....
showed all the classic signs of a roider….
Maybe it was just he can hit?
That certainly makes him stand out on this team.
Seriously?
The body-builder physique and the freakish statistical power spike?
That physique
comes from the fact that he WAS a professional body builder turned baseball player which explain where all that power comes from.
And professional body builders don’t use steroids?
So if that explains where the power came from while he was in Toronto, where did it go when he was with the Angels.
Of course none of us really know who was doing what… but with all that juicing going on in the game throughout the years that Fullmer played… why would you be so adament that he wasn’t amongst them?
Don't get me wrong
If it was proven he did steroids then there is no way I would defend what he did. But the fact is he wasn’t (still could have been doing them, I know) and to say he was based on subjective evidence and hearsay is no reason to demean a guy. I don’t know what he did or didn’t do but you suggest that his “body-builder physique” is due only to steroids while I am informing you that it was because he was indeed a professional body builder and got that physique by doing whatever it is body builders do (steroids or not).

by 


























